Blog Responses - Portraits

"Photography records the gamut of feelings written on the human face, the beauty of the earth and skies that man has inherited, and the wealth and confusion man has created. It is a major force in explaining man to man."

- Edward Steichen

I had to look up "gamut" which is defined by dictionary.com as, "the entire scale or range" - and photography most certainly records the entire range of human emotion as it appears on the face. I've probably seen nearly every kind of feeling on a face in a photograph, and if I haven't the camera has the ability to capture it, with the right timing.

Photography can be difficult to explain in detail, because there is so much that we can do with it.

"I just think it's important to be direct and honest with people about why you're photographing them and what you're doing. After all, you are taking some of their soul."

- Mary Ellen Mark

I don't think that you take some of their soul, but rather that you are preserving some of it. Some of the best photos I've taken (many which happen to be my favorites as well) are candid shots, capturing their natural selves (which are so much better than a fake self).

- - -

In your opinion, when is it beneficial, ethnical, or appropriate to digitally alter photographic portraits? When do you think it's inappropriate or ethnically wrong?

I think it is beneficial and appropriate to digitally alter a photograph when it enhances the photograph - altering the elements of a photo (composition, contrast, etc) in a way that makes the photo better, more appealing to the viewer, would definitely be a good thing. Or when the photographer is trying to create a mood by adjusting the tone of the photo, to get an idea across.

It is definitely not ethnical to digitally alter a photograph when it sets up a situation that implies something false about a person - a risque photo could imply that someone is a floosy, when that person is not that at all. Photos can be altered moments that create false impressions of the person in the portrait.

- - -

Pay close attention to the types and number of photographic portraits you see in one day. Where did you see them? How do you think that the content of the portrait changes based on the context in which you see the image (news, facebook, magazine, advertisement, television, youtube, etc)? In other words, what is the difference between the portraits you see on facebook vs. those on the news? What is the difference between the "viewpoint" of the photographer in each situation? What is the difference between their "intents"?

I see portraits everywhere - advertising has been a major one, but Facebook is probably the one that I see the most often. I'm always looking at photos on Facebook. Flickr is another place that I see portraits; I look through Flickriver a lot to see what's interesting that day and I'll see hundreds of portraits.

The content of the portrait does change based on the context we see it in - a portrait on a Facebook profile is much more personal than a portrait that we see in an advertisement or a magazine.

Facebook profile photos are to show the best side of ourselves - at an event we enjoy, laughing or wearing a really awesome costume or doing something epic. They try to show a positive side of ourselves, a side that everyone would want to get to know. The portraits that we see on the news are to try to show the person as they truly are so that anyone can recognize them on the spot, to find them for whatever reason (be it a criminal for murder or to a kidnapped child).